Crime CXXXX– Intoxication XI
As
far as intent in criminal law is concerned, it does not matter if the defendant
committed the act when he was drunk and as long as the prosecution can prove that
the intent was always there, the defendant can be found guilty.
Intent
remains intent and if the prosecution can establish that the intention was
there when the defendant was sober than the jury can convict. The fact that
drugs or alcohol take away the defendant’s inhibitions does not negate or
diminish intent and in some instances it does not even mitigate the crime or
the offence for the reason that the intent was always there and the excessive
drinking or the drugs merely made it easier for the defendant to carry out his
or her intentions.
In
R v Kingston (1995), the defendant was a homosexual with pedophiliac
predilections and was drugged by a friend, who was employed by another party to
gain some leverage that they could use to settle a business dispute with the
defendant. While he was intoxicated he was encouraged to perform sexual acts
with a 15 year old boy who was drugged by a soporific drink. The boy remembered
nothing but the friend had photographed everything that had transpired.
The
defendant was charged and a jury convicted the defendant. The defendant
appealed on the grounds that he was drugged and therefore he could not form the
intention to commit the offence and the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction.
The
prosecution appealed and the House of Lords upheld the conviction on the basis
that despite the fact that the defendant was drugged, the intention to commit
the offence was always there and the trial judge’s direction to the jury had
been correct in that, if the jury find that the intention was always there,
then regardless of the fact that the defendant was drugged or intoxicated, the
jury must convict.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment